Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour are going to complete a manifesto pledge and put a bill forward to change the law so that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in general elections starting from next one! Bearing in mind that they are already allowed to vote in devolved elections in Wales and Scotland So… agree, disagree? " no taxation without representation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour are going to complete a manifesto pledge and put a bill forward to change the law so that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in general elections starting from next one! Bearing in mind that they are already allowed to vote in devolved elections in Wales and Scotland So… agree, disagree? " My preconception is that younger people now are more politically engaged than they were when I was a kid. I assume the right wing media are going to kick off about it. Young people are less likely to vote for Tories or the ultra Tories. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour are going to complete a manifesto pledge and put a bill forward to change the law so that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in general elections starting from next one! Bearing in mind that they are already allowed to vote in devolved elections in Wales and Scotland So… agree, disagree? " Will they be easier to bribe (could say the same for pensioners)? Do they have the life experience to make informed decisions (could say that about many adults)? Do they have the maturity to make rational decisions & see through bulls*** from politicians on both sides? What is the logic behind extending them a vote? What happens at 16 that doesn't happen at 14, that exists at 18? It smells like ages gerrymandering... If you give voting rights to people who do not earn and are dependent on parents/the state, the danger is that they will simply demand everything, since they aren't really contributing to it (see pensioners). And if anyone says "well, they'll understand that it will affect them down the line", then they haven't met a representative cross-section of teenagers. Disagree, but could be convinced otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is not a good idea for the country, however it might be for Labour / Greens. I believe this is yet another example of targets and policies without standards. Giving 16 year olds the vote without teaching them all equally about how government, taxation, and policy actually work is irresponsible. I think a more sensible starting approach would be votes of 16 year old = 0.25 and 17 year olds = 0.5, until we have a national syllabus that supports such important decision making and giving time to understanding the effects lowering the voting age will have in real terms. " Virtually no-one has a real understanding of those sorts of things. Not even politicians, especially when you hear them churning out the "household budget" and "maxed out credit card" analogies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is not a good idea for the country, however it might be for Labour / Greens. I believe this is yet another example of targets and policies without standards. Giving 16 year olds the vote without teaching them all equally about how government, taxation, and policy actually work is irresponsible. I think a more sensible starting approach would be votes of 16 year old = 0.25 and 17 year olds = 0.5, until we have a national syllabus that supports such important decision making and giving time to understanding the effects lowering the voting age will have in real terms." Will teachers and youth groups then hold an outsized influence in elections? Even tone and inflection could play a part even when reading off a script describing political parties. Are we introducing an incentive to start political indoctrination earlier? The left might think it will help then, but you will likely find some extreme right groups recruiting earlier. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I joined the Army at 16, if I was judged able to make that sort of life decision, then having a say in what sort of government I want seems fair. " Agreed. But from what age could you be put into combat? Training is great, but real danger is another thing. The stepped weighting of votes would be similar to your experience, right? OR... Extend votes to people who show commitment to the country and/or take time to learn of civic duty, for example those in the armed forces (spitballing ideas). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is not a good idea for the country, however it might be for Labour / Greens. I believe this is yet another example of targets and policies without standards. Giving 16 year olds the vote without teaching them all equally about how government, taxation, and policy actually work is irresponsible. I think a more sensible starting approach would be votes of 16 year old = 0.25 and 17 year olds = 0.5, until we have a national syllabus that supports such important decision making and giving time to understanding the effects lowering the voting age will have in real terms. Virtually no-one has a real understanding of those sorts of things. Not even politicians, especially when you hear them churning out the "household budget" and "maxed out credit card" analogies." Exactly. If many adults including politicians struggle to understand government, budgets, and policy beyond analogies, then lowering the voting age without proper education risks diluting understanding even further. But it doesn’t have to be a bad thing. If we use this change as a trigger to introduce a national, standardised syllabus, we could actually start to improve longterm political understanding and voter engagement which would eventually be across all age groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is not a good idea for the country, however it might be for Labour / Greens. I believe this is yet another example of targets and policies without standards. Giving 16 year olds the vote without teaching them all equally about how government, taxation, and policy actually work is irresponsible. I think a more sensible starting approach would be votes of 16 year old = 0.25 and 17 year olds = 0.5, until we have a national syllabus that supports such important decision making and giving time to understanding the effects lowering the voting age will have in real terms. Will teachers and youth groups then hold an outsized influence in elections? Even tone and inflection could play a part even when reading off a script describing political parties. Are we introducing an incentive to start political indoctrination earlier? The left might think it will help then, but you will likely find some extreme right groups recruiting earlier." The idea to dilute the vote impact of 16 - 17 year olds until the effects are known fully, would in theory flush that out. However you have brought up an interesting point in terms of teacher influences, which would be a real but invisible impact. The idea of a national syllabus and exams would also help to understand if that was reality before the full vote was given. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time." Why will it back fire, do you think young people will vote for the Tories or ultra-Tories instead? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is not a good idea for the country, however it might be for Labour / Greens. I believe this is yet another example of targets and policies without standards. Giving 16 year olds the vote without teaching them all equally about how government, taxation, and policy actually work is irresponsible. I think a more sensible starting approach would be votes of 16 year old = 0.25 and 17 year olds = 0.5, until we have a national syllabus that supports such important decision making and giving time to understanding the effects lowering the voting age will have in real terms." Interesting idea on the 1/2 and 1/4 votes. There is absolutely zero chance that the national syllabus will supports such important decision making. They actively want a malleable and un-engaged electorate, otherwise they might not continue to vote against their own interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time. Why will it back fire, do you think young people will vote for the Tories or ultra-Tories instead?" Reform could honestly harness a massive youth vote. Populism (left or right) is the danger, and there are a lot of right wing votes to be had out there at young ages. It's easy to go from telling racist jokes about [insert foreigner here] in the school playground to voting for a right wing party to get rid of them altogether. Most awful right wing movements throughout history recruited from young, disenfranchised "yoofs". Careful what you wish for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time. Why will it back fire, do you think young people will vote for the Tories or ultra-Tories instead? Reform could honestly harness a massive youth vote. Populism (left or right) is the danger, and there are a lot of right wing votes to be had out there at young ages. It's easy to go from telling racist jokes about [insert foreigner here] in the school playground to voting for a right wing party to get rid of them altogether. Most awful right wing movements throughout history recruited from young, disenfranchised "yoofs". Careful what you wish for." Yeah that's true. My preconception about younger people being less jaded and less right wing could be completely wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah that's true. My preconception about younger people being less jaded and less right wing could be completely wrong. " It's not about left or right wing... It's about intensity of feeling, falling for easy-sounding solutions (populism) and propensity towards extremism. Right and left hardly matter... With the right charismatic leader, young people are happy to enforce absolutism where they agree with them (Soviets, Nazis, Iranian Revolution, etc.), especially where they're unhappy for some reason and feel otherwise powerless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not about left or right wing... It's about intensity of feeling, falling for easy-sounding solutions (populism) and propensity towards extremism. Right and left hardly matter... With the right charismatic leader, young people are happy to enforce absolutism where they agree with them (Soviets, Nazis, Iranian Revolution, etc.), especially where they're unhappy for some reason and feel otherwise powerless. " Have you read any study that backs up this idea about 16 and 17 year olds compared with older age groups or is it based on your personal observations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read any study that backs up this idea about 16 and 17 year olds compared with older age groups or is it based on your personal observations?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Pioneers_(Soviet_Union) Please read the context of the response (youths are not necessarily "left wing" or "not jaded") to which you're replying. They will join protest/revolutionary movements and are easily manipulated by charismatic leaders with a populist story (on either side of the political spectrum). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time. Why will it back fire, do you think young people will vote for the Tories or ultra-Tories instead? Reform could honestly harness a massive youth vote. Populism (left or right) is the danger, and there are a lot of right wing votes to be had out there at young ages. It's easy to go from telling racist jokes about [insert foreigner here] in the school playground to voting for a right wing party to get rid of them altogether. Most awful right wing movements throughout history recruited from young, disenfranchised "yoofs". Careful what you wish for. Yeah that's true. My preconception about younger people being less jaded and less right wing could be completely wrong. " I agree with T_M, at the age of 16 influences are strong without rhyme or reason. How many 16 year olds vape? How many 16 year olds hang on Taylor Swifts every word? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read any study that backs up this idea about 16 and 17 year olds compared with older age groups or is it based on your personal observations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Pioneers_(Soviet_Union) Please read the context of the response (youths are not necessarily "left wing" or "not jaded") to which you're replying. They will join protest/revolutionary movements and are easily manipulated by charismatic leaders with a populist story (on either side of the political spectrum)." but then the same is the case for every age group in living memory, so why disenfranchise those who maybe young but still are required to pay taxes or become child soldiers etc etc etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" but then the same is the case for every age group in living memory, so why disenfranchise those who maybe young but still are required to pay taxes or become child soldiers etc etc etc" Perhaps, yes. But that wasn't the context of the post. It wasn't an argument against children voting. Just an observation on whether they're not jaded, or not right wing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Please read the context of the response (youths are not necessarily "left wing" or "not jaded") to which you're replying. They will join protest/revolutionary movements and are easily manipulated by charismatic leaders with a populist story (on either side of the political spectrum)." I'm not all guns blazing attacking your position and I agree left/right is essentially irrelevant, I'm just genuinely interested to learn if there's been any study of this. It would be difficult to design such a study and I wonder if anyone has had success in determining whether a 16-17 year old group compared with 18-19 year old group were actually easier to radicalize with populist rhetoric. I see people of all ages who appear to be easily manipulated or who have entrenched populist views so it's not obvious to me that 16 and 17 year olds are particularly susceptible. Part of this is also based on my own personal development as by the age of 16 I was highly educated, had been drinking in pubs for four years, was working two or three nights a week as a roadie/sound engineer for a semi-pro rock band and had an active involvement in all manner of adult stuff. The idea that I wouldn't have been able to judge who to vote for out of a very limited choice of political candidates seems totally ludicrous. Also as I hinted at earlier, similar arguments have been deployed to prevent men under 21 from voting and even property owning women under 30 from voting. And most people seemed to think this was just common sense. Arguments of this nature (yours and mine) are borderline so actual evidence rather than hunches would be useful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Arguments of this nature (yours and mine) are borderline so actual evidence rather than hunches would be useful. " Here's a quick anecdotal analysis: Younger people (18-24 & 25-29) were the only age groups more likely to vote reform than conservative. 18-24 were the only age group more likely to vote green than liberal democrats. This clearly demonstrates that as age reduces, they are more likely to go fringe/radical/populist than centrist (not calling any parties any of those things, just illustrating a trend). If you want a full analysis, then please share one you've done it.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" but then the same is the case for every age group in living memory, so why disenfranchise those who maybe young but still are required to pay taxes or become child soldiers etc etc etc Perhaps, yes. But that wasn't the context of the post. It wasn't an argument against children voting. Just an observation on whether they're not jaded, or not right wing. " i didn't see it as an argument against 16-17 yr olds voting. just pointing out the reality that any and every age group will join protest/revolutionary movements and are easily manipulated by charismatic leaders with a populist story. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour are going to complete a manifesto pledge and put a bill forward to change the law so that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in general elections starting from next one! Bearing in mind that they are already allowed to vote in devolved elections in Wales and Scotland So… agree, disagree? Will they be easier to bribe (could say the same for pensioners)? Do they have the life experience to make informed decisions (could say that about many adults)? Do they have the maturity to make rational decisions & see through bulls*** from politicians on both sides? What is the logic behind extending them a vote? What happens at 16 that doesn't happen at 14, that exists at 18? It smells like ages gerrymandering... If you give voting rights to people who do not earn and are dependent on parents/the state, the danger is that they will simply demand everything, since they aren't really contributing to it (see pensioners). And if anyone says "well, they'll understand that it will affect them down the line", then they haven't met a representative cross-section of teenagers. Disagree, but could be convinced otherwise." Do the people who voted labour meet the above qualifications? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a quick anecdotal analysis: Younger people (18-24 & 25-29) were the only age groups more likely to vote reform than conservative. 18-24 were the only age group more likely to vote green than liberal democrats. This clearly demonstrates that as age reduces, they are more likely to go fringe/radical/populist than centrist (not calling any parties any of those things, just illustrating a trend). If you want a full analysis, then please share one you've done it." Sorry that doesn't sound like much of an argument. I remain to be convinced that 16 to 17 year olds are more suscepitble to populist radicalization than 18 to 19 year olds. It might seem intuitive to some I guess, but I've spoken about politics with a very large number of people and there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between how well-balanced or informed someone is and what year they were born. Loads of older people are accutely aware of what's going on in the world but some older people don't know what month it is. We don't say there should be a cutoff age for voting. It seems to be similar for young people. Some have no interest in much beyond their tiny social media bubble. Others are extremely aware and are keen to make the world a better place. Democracy to me is about involving people in decision making. Voting doesn't have a massive impact on things in reality as governments are pretty constrained by forces beyond their control but it's kind of the best thing we've come up with so far. So just by my instinct it seems right to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. If a study comes up that says they are especially irresponsible and susceptible to manipulation then I might change my mind. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You could argue the other side of the coin.... Will they give the vote to youth and take it away from over 65's for example...? I mean most parties don't really like old people as they cost ! " Without old people there wouldn't be any young people, it's not the fault of the old people that the young people aren't spawning enough useful replacements | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a quick anecdotal analysis: Younger people (18-24 & 25-29) were the only age groups more likely to vote reform than conservative. 18-24 were the only age group more likely to vote green than liberal democrats. This clearly demonstrates that as age reduces, they are more likely to go fringe/radical/populist than centrist (not calling any parties any of those things, just illustrating a trend). If you want a full analysis, then please share one you've done it. Sorry that doesn't sound like much of an argument. I remain to be convinced that 16 to 17 year olds are more suscepitble to populist radicalization than 18 to 19 year olds. It might seem intuitive to some I guess, but I've spoken about politics with a very large number of people and there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between how well-balanced or informed someone is and what year they were born. Loads of older people are accutely aware of what's going on in the world but some older people don't know what month it is. We don't say there should be a cutoff age for voting. It seems to be similar for young people. Some have no interest in much beyond their tiny social media bubble. Others are extremely aware and are keen to make the world a better place. Democracy to me is about involving people in decision making. Voting doesn't have a massive impact on things in reality as governments are pretty constrained by forces beyond their control but it's kind of the best thing we've come up with so far. So just by my instinct it seems right to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. If a study comes up that says they are especially irresponsible and susceptible to manipulation then I might change my mind. " The young people will do whatever tiktok tells them lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Without old people there wouldn't be any young people, it's not the fault of the old people that the young people aren't spawning enough useful replacements" it's not the fault of the young people that the old people fucked the country up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would people be happy to have a cabinet of 16yr old mp's overruled by a 16yr old pm. "Would you be happy to have a cabinet and PM who were all aged over 95? If not should voting rights be removed on someone's 95th birthday? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would people be happy to have a cabinet of 16yr old mp's overruled by a 16yr old pm. "16 year olds can’t stand for election. They will just be able to vote in them. Though not have a beer afterwards to celebrate their vote for Corbyn or some mad Islamists. They can be trusted with the running of the country but not with alcohol or cars. And if this doesn’t work expect Labour to lower the voting age to ten. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would people be happy to have a cabinet of 16yr old mp's overruled by a 16yr old pm.
Would you be happy to have a cabinet and PM who were all aged over 95?
If not should voting rights be removed on someone's 95th birthday?"I would not have any objection to a person of 95 in cabinet or pm, you do realise the person who will live to 150 or 200 has already been born. Would you be happy for cabinet and pm to be 16yr olds.? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would people be happy to have a cabinet of 16yr old mp's overruled by a 16yr old pm.
16 year olds can’t stand for election. They will just be able to vote in them. Though not have a beer afterwards to celebrate their vote for Corbyn or some mad Islamists. They can be trusted with the running of the country but not with alcohol or cars.
And if this doesn’t work expect Labour to lower the voting age to ten."The 16yr old election rules can and will be changed by the progressive left they will not stop at lowering the voting age. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So just by my instinct it seems right to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. " What is your lower limit, and why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To put a slightly different perspective on it. We have people voting who have not worked for 30-40 years, have no mortgage, and love of a final salary pension that provides them with a take home income far higher than many who are in work and are paying a mortgage. I'm not suggesting these people shouldn't vote, but it only feels right that those just starting out in life should be afforded the same agency." You believe a 16 year old child with limited life experiences should be compared to a person who has a vast amount of life experience? I'm also unsure why the description of the elder person improves the argument you are making, is it a bias rather than an argument? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time. Why will it back fire, do you think young people will vote for the Tories or ultra-Tories instead?" It'll backfire because (imo) there is no public backing for it. Once again Labour have dived head first into a policy without taking the public with them. It's either political arrogance or naivety, take your pick. In either case, it's Nigel Farage who'll benefit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would not have any objection to a person of 95 in cabinet or pm, you do realise the person who will live to 150 or 200 has already been born. Would you be happy for cabinet and pm to be 16yr olds.?" You think someone born today could live to be 200 years old. That's interesting and quite a leap from 122 which is the oldest so far. I think a cabinet and PM where they were all 16 or all over 95 would probably be a disaster. In the case of the youngsters I don't see how they would have the time to have accumulate the day to day understanding of Parliamentary procedures nor the experience to deal with other aspects of the job. My understanding of this debate is that it's about the right to vote not the ability to do a very difficult job at the top of government. At 95+ I suspect even if they were as alert and wise as some of the best of the House of Lords they'd probably not have the stamina to deal with the 24/7 stresses of cabinet. And some might struggle to connect with the issues of people born nearly a century after them. I'd would however be quite happy for a wide-ranging setup with the youngest being say 16 and the oldest 95 as they could bring a balanced approach to things. In fact it could be really good if this happened. My question was if they were ALL over 95, and your question was if they were ALL 16. I've answered your question but you haven't answered mine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Here's a quick anecdotal analysis: Younger people (18-24 & 25-29) were the only age groups more likely to vote reform than conservative. 18-24 were the only age group more likely to vote green than liberal democrats. This clearly demonstrates that as age reduces, they are more likely to go fringe/radical/populist than centrist (not calling any parties any of those things, just illustrating a trend). If you want a full analysis, then please share one you've done it. Sorry that doesn't sound like much of an argument. I remain to be convinced that 16 to 17 year olds are more suscepitble to populist radicalization than 18 to 19 year olds. It might seem intuitive to some I guess, but I've spoken about politics with a very large number of people and there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between how well-balanced or informed someone is and what year they were born. Loads of older people are accutely aware of what's going on in the world but some older people don't know what month it is. We don't say there should be a cutoff age for voting. It seems to be similar for young people. Some have no interest in much beyond their tiny social media bubble. Others are extremely aware and are keen to make the world a better place. Democracy to me is about involving people in decision making. Voting doesn't have a massive impact on things in reality as governments are pretty constrained by forces beyond their control but it's kind of the best thing we've come up with so far. So just by my instinct it seems right to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. If a study comes up that says they are especially irresponsible and susceptible to manipulation then I might change my mind. " I was reading an article around this subject today. It was written earlier in the year when we were being told "all" Gen Z want a dictator. Not sure if I can post the link here, it's a Byline Times article titled "No, Gen Z Do Not Want to Be Ruled by a Dictator"  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is your lower limit, and why?" An excellent and obvious question. In practice the younger the age the less agency and experience a person has. Obviously a new born hasn't the capacity to vote. At the other end of the age spectrum should we deny people with dementia the right to vote? Theoretically I think everyone should be able to vote because I genuinely believe in the principal of democracy. Basically the answer to your question is not a clear cut one. For people without mental capacity how do we avoid manipulation? If it's purely about mental capacity then do we have an aptitude test? If so who would design the test? So from a fuzzy heuristic point of view at this point in time I'd go with 16 to death with no restrictions on mental health (or criminal convictions, but that's a different debate). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would not have any objection to a person of 95 in cabinet or pm, you do realise the person who will live to 150 or 200 has already been born. Would you be happy for cabinet and pm to be 16yr olds.? You think someone born today could live to be 200 years old. That's interesting and quite a leap from 122 which is the oldest so far. I think a cabinet and PM where they were all 16 or all over 95 would probably be a disaster. In the case of the youngsters I don't see how they would have the time to have accumulate the day to day understanding of Parliamentary procedures nor the experience to deal with other aspects of the job. My understanding of this debate is that it's about the right to vote not the ability to do a very difficult job at the top of government. At 95+ I suspect even if they were as alert and wise as some of the best of the House of Lords they'd probably not have the stamina to deal with the 24/7 stresses of cabinet. And some might struggle to connect with the issues of people born nearly a century after them. I'd would however be quite happy for a wide-ranging setup with the youngest being say 16 and the oldest 95 as they could bring a balanced approach to things. In fact it could be really good if this happened. My question was if they were ALL over 95, and your question was if they were ALL 16. I've answered your question but you haven't answered mine. " With medical science and AI advancements yes I do believe someone born yesterday could live past 150, by the 22nd century i reckon they will have all sorts of crazy stuff to fix us, I would not have any objection to a pm and cabinet made up of 95 Yr olds if they were mentality and physically capable, I would object to a cabinet and pm of 16yr olds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I was reading an article around this subject today. It was written earlier in the year when we were being told "all" Gen Z want a dictator. Not sure if I can post the link here, it's a Byline Times article titled "No, Gen Z Do Not Want to Be Ruled by a Dictator" "Thanks for that pointer. A lightweight but nonetheless interesting article. I think part of what it was saying is that the kids of today aren't that different to the kids of the previous generation or the kids of Socrate's time. Which makes a great deal of sense from a scientific POV. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To put a slightly different perspective on it. We have people voting who have not worked for 30-40 years, have no mortgage, and love of a final salary pension that provides them with a take home income far higher than many who are in work and are paying a mortgage. I'm not suggesting these people shouldn't vote, but it only feels right that those just starting out in life should be afforded the same agency. You believe a 16 year old child with limited life experiences should be compared to a person who has a vast amount of life experience? I'm also unsure why the description of the elder person improves the argument you are making, is it a bias rather than an argument? " Oh I see how you've twisted that. I wasn't arguing against those elderly people having a vote, I'm making a point as to why 16 year old should have the vote. The impact of government decisions impact the 16 year old far more than they do the 95 year old in my example. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To put a slightly different perspective on it. We have people voting who have not worked for 30-40 years, have no mortgage, and love of a final salary pension that provides them with a take home income far higher than many who are in work and are paying a mortgage. I'm not suggesting these people shouldn't vote, but it only feels right that those just starting out in life should be afforded the same agency. You believe a 16 year old child with limited life experiences should be compared to a person who has a vast amount of life experience? I'm also unsure why the description of the elder person improves the argument you are making, is it a bias rather than an argument? Oh I see how you've twisted that. I wasn't arguing against those elderly people having a vote, I'm making a point as to why 16 year old should have the vote. The impact of government decisions impact the 16 year old far more than they do the 95 year old in my example." They impact a one month old even more, by your argument. Should parents be given an extra vote to vote for their baby? Or maybe it would be better if the state itself voted on the baby’s behalf, to filter out any untoward parental opinions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
We need to have politics with much longer term vision, which having people who are going to be around the longest, should demand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour are going to complete a manifesto pledge and put a bill forward to change the law so that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in general elections starting from next one! Bearing in mind that they are already allowed to vote in devolved elections in Wales and Scotland So… agree, disagree? " Bearing in mind the Tories are already spouting their nonsense against, it therefore must be a good policy. Younger people are generally more accepting of multi-cultural society having lived their entire lives throughout , thus helping to balance out the fear of Johnny Foreigner so displayed in this forum and by right wing aligned old people. Bad news for Reform and any Tories remaning (if any). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To put a slightly different perspective on it. We have people voting who have not worked for 30-40 years, have no mortgage, and love of a final salary pension that provides them with a take home income far higher than many who are in work and are paying a mortgage. I'm not suggesting these people shouldn't vote, but it only feels right that those just starting out in life should be afforded the same agency. You believe a 16 year old child with limited life experiences should be compared to a person who has a vast amount of life experience? I'm also unsure why the description of the elder person improves the argument you are making, is it a bias rather than an argument? Oh I see how you've twisted that. I wasn't arguing against those elderly people having a vote, I'm making a point as to why 16 year old should have the vote. The impact of government decisions impact the 16 year old far more than they do the 95 year old in my example." Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. " 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bearing in mind the Tories are already spouting their nonsense against, it therefore must be a good policy. " Oooookay. This is why some ADULTS shouldn't have the vote. Sheesh. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them..." Yet offer them a free £100 cash and a bottle of vodka/Fortnite subscription and they'll probably still vote for you. Have you met the "average" teenager? (No, not your brilliant and altruistic nephew, who helps old ladies across the road). There is a reason that insurance companies consider youth a liability (for driving and life habits). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is your lower limit, and why? ... So from a fuzzy heuristic point of view at this point in time I'd go with 16 to death with no restrictions on mental health (or criminal convictions, but that's a different debate). " But why 16, specifically? And would you subject a 16yo to all rights and privileges of adulthood? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life." Voting is only important for people with a life expectancy of X. Interesting idea. So would we then exclude the terminally ill? Retirees? What about people with disabilities that shorten life expectancy, or 16 year olds with illnesses, where is the threshold. If we’re going to expand the voting age to children, we should focus on whether those young people are equipped to make informed decisions and provide them the resources to be better equipped, before they are given such an important responsibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But 16-18 year olds will still be treated as children by the criminal justice system." And they can't stand as parliamentary candidates either. Labour running scared of Reform 🤣 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time. Why will it back fire, do you think young people will vote for the Tories or ultra-Tories instead? Reform could honestly harness a massive youth vote. Populism (left or right) is the danger, and there are a lot of right wing votes to be had out there at young ages. It's easy to go from telling racist jokes about [insert foreigner here] in the school playground to voting for a right wing party to get rid of them altogether. Most awful right wing movements throughout history recruited from young, disenfranchised "yoofs". Careful what you wish for. Yeah that's true. My preconception about younger people being less jaded and less right wing could be completely wrong. I agree with T_M, at the age of 16 influences are strong without rhyme or reason. How many 16 year olds vape? How many 16 year olds hang on Taylor Swifts every word? " Aight but there's less hate in the heart of the average 16 year old. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple solution: Have a referendum on it. We were all 16 once. Let's see what the electorate thinks." Blimey if there's one thing we've learned over the past decade, referendums are a terrible idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bearing in mind the Tories are already spouting their nonsense against, it therefore must be a good policy. Oooookay. This is why some ADULTS shouldn't have the vote. Sheesh." Did you actually read Paul Holmes statement to the HoC. Do you even know who he is? My point is he was banging on about lotto tickets, going to war, buying alcohol, all of which have negative consequences, whereas letting a 16 year old vote has no direct negative consequences and could be a positive to get them involved earlier in democracy. Judging by your 10+ posts on this thread alone you clearly like the sound of your own voice. When not at your keyboard are you in the pub boring everyone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bearing in mind the Tories are already spouting their nonsense against, it therefore must be a good policy. Oooookay. This is why some ADULTS shouldn't have the vote. Sheesh. Did you actually read Paul Holmes statement to the HoC. Do you even know who he is? My point is he was banging on about lotto tickets, going to war, buying alcohol, all of which have negative consequences, whereas letting a 16 year old vote has no direct negative consequences and could be a positive to get them involved earlier in democracy. Judging by your 10+ posts on this thread alone you clearly like the sound of your own voice. When not at your keyboard are you in the pub boring everyone?" Cocktail lounge. Waiting for a train. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bearing in mind the Tories are already spouting their nonsense against, it therefore must be a good policy. Oooookay. This is why some ADULTS shouldn't have the vote. Sheesh. Did you actually read Paul Holmes statement to the HoC. Do you even know who he is? My point is he was banging on about lotto tickets, going to war, buying alcohol, all of which have negative consequences, whereas letting a 16 year old vote has no direct negative consequences and could be a positive to get them involved earlier in democracy. Judging by your 10+ posts on this thread alone you clearly like the sound of your own voice. When not at your keyboard are you in the pub boring everyone?" If 16 year olds voting has no effect why are Labour bothering letting them vote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple solution: Have a referendum on it. We were all 16 once. Let's see what the electorate thinks." It was voted for last year, at the General Election. It was in Labours Manifesto. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Labour are going to complete a manifesto pledge and put a bill forward to change the law so that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in general elections starting from next one! Bearing in mind that they are already allowed to vote in devolved elections in Wales and Scotland So… agree, disagree? " Will be interesting to see how it changes the elections and before that the polls once pollsters take this new group into account. As you say it has happened in Scotland so wonder if it benefited any particular party when they made the change. Thing is, are they doing this for the good of the country or the good of the labour party? If 17 & 18 year olds were shown to be more likely to vote Tory, would they be introducing this change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple solution: Have a referendum on it. We were all 16 once. Let's see what the electorate thinks. It was voted for last year, at the General Election. It was in Labours Manifesto." Good point, actually. 
It was summer somewhere in the fine print, under "Restore economic stability"... But they never really got past that one...? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple solution: Have a referendum on it. We were all 16 once. Let's see what the electorate thinks. It was voted for last year, at the General Election. It was in Labours Manifesto." Under 20% of the electorate voted Labour. Not really an endorsement of any of their policies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They have no clue about the effect right wing parties have had on younger people in other countries using TikTok campaigns." Right wing parties don't need to spend a penny. Russia and North Korea do it for them, for free. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bearing in mind the Tories are already spouting their nonsense against, it therefore must be a good policy. Oooookay. This is why some ADULTS shouldn't have the vote. Sheesh. Did you actually read Paul Holmes statement to the HoC. Do you even know who he is? My point is he was banging on about lotto tickets, going to war, buying alcohol, all of which have negative consequences, whereas letting a 16 year old vote has no direct negative consequences and could be a positive to get them involved earlier in democracy. Judging by your 10+ posts on this thread alone you clearly like the sound of your own voice. When not at your keyboard are you in the pub boring everyone? Cocktail lounge. Waiting for a train."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the argument is that if they are old enough to pay tax, they are old enough to vote, then if they old enough to do both, they are old enough to take full responsibility for crimes too. Let's not treat them differently in the criminal justice system. It's going to be interesting though. Labour is doing this because they believe that the younger ones would vote labour. They have no clue about the effect right wing parties have had on younger people in other countries using TikTok campaigns. The moment this becomes official, there will be a massive online campaign targeted at youngsters. Consequences are not something left wing parties are known to understand well. This time won't be any different." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to boost their support through the 'yoof' vote. You'd think they'd done enough damage already, but no, here we are with another half-baked policy that will backfire big time." So tell us how you see that backfiring | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah that's true. My preconception about younger people being less jaded and less right wing could be completely wrong. It's not about left or right wing... It's about intensity of feeling, falling for easy-sounding solutions (populism) and propensity towards extremism. Right and left hardly matter... With the right charismatic leader, young people are happy to enforce absolutism where they agree with them (Soviets, Nazis, Iranian Revolution, etc.), especially where they're unhappy for some reason and feel otherwise powerless. " That could be any age demographic. Plenty on here for example! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple solution: Have a referendum on it. We were all 16 once. Let's see what the electorate thinks. It was voted for last year, at the General Election. It was in Labours Manifesto. Under 20% of the electorate voted Labour. Not really an endorsement of any of their policies. " It is an endorsement of their policies. They won the General Election, it’s that simple. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life. Voting is only important for people with a life expectancy of X. Interesting idea. So would we then exclude the terminally ill? Retirees? What about people with disabilities that shorten life expectancy, or 16 year olds with illnesses, where is the threshold. If we’re going to expand the voting age to children, we should focus on whether those young people are equipped to make informed decisions and provide them the resources to be better equipped, before they are given such an important responsibility." You're quite deliberately twisting my argument on its head. Totally disingenuous. I'm not advocating for the elderly not to have the vote as your responses try to suggest. I'm stating why shouldn't 16 year olds have the vote given they are impacted by government decisions far more than many elderly people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life. Voting is only important for people with a life expectancy of X. Interesting idea. So would we then exclude the terminally ill? Retirees? What about people with disabilities that shorten life expectancy, or 16 year olds with illnesses, where is the threshold. If we’re going to expand the voting age to children, we should focus on whether those young people are equipped to make informed decisions and provide them the resources to be better equipped, before they are given such an important responsibility. You're quite deliberately twisting my argument on its head. Totally disingenuous. I'm not advocating for the elderly not to have the vote as your responses try to suggest. I'm stating why shouldn't 16 year olds have the vote given they are impacted by government decisions far more than many elderly people. " You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life. Voting is only important for people with a life expectancy of X. Interesting idea. So would we then exclude the terminally ill? Retirees? What about people with disabilities that shorten life expectancy, or 16 year olds with illnesses, where is the threshold. If we’re going to expand the voting age to children, we should focus on whether those young people are equipped to make informed decisions and provide them the resources to be better equipped, before they are given such an important responsibility. You're quite deliberately twisting my argument on its head. Totally disingenuous. I'm not advocating for the elderly not to have the vote as your responses try to suggest. I'm stating why shouldn't 16 year olds have the vote given they are impacted by government decisions far more than many elderly people. You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally." OK, perhaps support that argument with some evidence that sets them apart and demonstrates their incapability of making an informed decision from the rest of the population that are able to vote. Your original argument hasn't stacked up so you're going to a different tac now I see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life. Voting is only important for people with a life expectancy of X. Interesting idea. So would we then exclude the terminally ill? Retirees? What about people with disabilities that shorten life expectancy, or 16 year olds with illnesses, where is the threshold. If we’re going to expand the voting age to children, we should focus on whether those young people are equipped to make informed decisions and provide them the resources to be better equipped, before they are given such an important responsibility. You're quite deliberately twisting my argument on its head. Totally disingenuous. I'm not advocating for the elderly not to have the vote as your responses try to suggest. I'm stating why shouldn't 16 year olds have the vote given they are impacted by government decisions far more than many elderly people. " I wasn't replying to you in this post... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Interesting, how do government decisions impact a 16 year old more than a 95 year old? The vast majority of 16 year olds still live with their parents in a protected environment. Interested to understand the thinking behind this. 95 year olds have less years, government decisions make less an impact. If you're lucky enough to get to 95, then you're much more likely to have a position of power/wealth/independence than most 16 year olds. A 16 year old’s got potential decades ahead of them, so the choices governments make now on stuff like education, climate, jobs—shape their whole future. A 95-year-old, on the other hand, probably isn’t planning for student loans or long-term career prospects. It’s not about babysitting it’s about setting people up for the best shot at a good life. Voting is only important for people with a life expectancy of X. Interesting idea. So would we then exclude the terminally ill? Retirees? What about people with disabilities that shorten life expectancy, or 16 year olds with illnesses, where is the threshold. If we’re going to expand the voting age to children, we should focus on whether those young people are equipped to make informed decisions and provide them the resources to be better equipped, before they are given such an important responsibility. You're quite deliberately twisting my argument on its head. Totally disingenuous. I'm not advocating for the elderly not to have the vote as your responses try to suggest. I'm stating why shouldn't 16 year olds have the vote given they are impacted by government decisions far more than many elderly people. You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. OK, perhaps support that argument with some evidence that sets them apart and demonstrates their incapability of making an informed decision from the rest of the population that are able to vote. Your original argument hasn't stacked up so you're going to a different tac now I see." No you don't see, I made no earlier argument. That aside, it's a judgement call based on experience. I don't see how it can be determined by 'evidence' on either side. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" OK, perhaps support that argument with some evidence that sets them apart and demonstrates their incapability of making an informed decision from the rest of the population that are able to vote. " Usually, the onus is on the party wishing to change the status quo, unless there is an overwhelmingly obvious issue with the status quo (e.g. women, blacks). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" OK, perhaps support that argument with some evidence that sets them apart and demonstrates their incapability of making an informed decision from the rest of the population that are able to vote. Usually, the onus is on the party wishing to change the status quo, unless there is an overwhelmingly obvious issue with the status quo (e.g. women, blacks)." Examples in Austria, Wales and even the Scottish Referendum demonstrated that an influence of 1-5% that the 16-18 years olds would bring to any election has been insufficient to change the outcome of said election. We also have a far better educated youth in our country than we did even 30 years ago. 16 year olds are far more politically aware than those of the baby boomer generation. As people have said, if you pay taxes you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. The gripe people seem to have, and the basis for arguing against this policy, seems to be based on the fact that the younger generations have tended to vote for more left leaning parties. That's not advocating for democracy - quite the opposite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so the electorate will increase by 1.5 million" I don't know what increase it would mean to the electorate, I've not looked it up. If that's in reference to the 1-5% of the impact on the vote in any election though, then that's not the measure being applied here. The 1-5% refers to the impact on the outcome of the vote of 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote. The actual impact varies depending on the election but is within 1-5% using all examples where 16 and 17 year olds have been given the agency to vote in an election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" OK, perhaps support that argument with some evidence that sets them apart and demonstrates their incapability of making an informed decision from the rest of the population that are able to vote. Usually, the onus is on the party wishing to change the status quo, unless there is an overwhelmingly obvious issue with the status quo (e.g. women, blacks). Examples in Austria, Wales and even the Scottish Referendum demonstrated that an influence of 1-5% that the 16-18 years olds would bring to any election has been insufficient to change the outcome of said election. We also have a far better educated youth in our country than we did even 30 years ago. 16 year olds are far more politically aware than those of the baby boomer generation. As people have said, if you pay taxes you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. The gripe people seem to have, and the basis for arguing against this policy, seems to be based on the fact that the younger generations have tended to vote for more left leaning parties. That's not advocating for democracy - quite the opposite. " I’m all in favour of it if all other restrictions that apply to 16 year olds are also lifted at the same time. As you say, the result will be somewhere between negligible (as 16 year olds don’t want to vote themselves) and producing improved results for “fringe” parties. Of course we all know that Labour is rushing it through because they are getting desperate. They have so badly mismanaged the country that they know that electoral wipeout is heading their way. They may as well roll the dice and see if this move can save them half a dozen seats. My guess is they are going to be very badly disappointed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally." What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so the electorate will increase by 1.5 million I don't know what increase it would mean to the electorate, I've not looked it up. If that's in reference to the 1-5% of the impact on the vote in any election though, then that's not the measure being applied here. The 1-5% refers to the impact on the outcome of the vote of 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote. The actual impact varies depending on the election but is within 1-5% using all examples where 16 and 17 year olds have been given the agency to vote in an election." chill .... i wasn't referencing your posts at all, just putting the increase in the number of franchisement out there. doubtless not all will participate though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. " Yes, this. Absolutely. Now, perhaps voting for a government/MP requires an ability to answer a few questions, too. And also passing a small course - say a 5 hours presentation and a 20 question exam. Those who are mentally incapacitated should also be excluded. JTN, your idea is fabulous, but it could lead us down a dangerous path. Perhaps it is better to suffer a bunch of idiots voting target than exclude people, because once that door is opened, it lends itself to abuse. This is really a tough one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. " That would have been good and the result would still be the same. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. " I get the idea, but it would be too cumbersome and bureaucratic to work in practice. I do get that some 16 year old might be more switched-on than many oldies.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. " That would have led to 100% vote for leaving the EU. Most Remain voters hadn’t got the first clue about the EU and hadn’t ever thought about it until someone asked them the question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so the electorate will increase by 1.5 million I don't know what increase it would mean to the electorate, I've not looked it up. If that's in reference to the 1-5% of the impact on the vote in any election though, then that's not the measure being applied here. The 1-5% refers to the impact on the outcome of the vote of 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote. The actual impact varies depending on the election but is within 1-5% using all examples where 16 and 17 year olds have been given the agency to vote in an election. chill .... i wasn't referencing your posts at all, just putting the increase in the number of franchisement out there. doubtless not all will participate though." Given that the impact is so negliable, it sort of puts a mockery on those suggesting this policy is designed to swing the vote in favour of labour. All the evidence suggests it won't and so you could therefore argue that isn't their motive and that this is far more about unlocking democracy to a forgotten generation who are vastly outnumbered by those of a pensionable age. A great example of how those of a pensionable age are courted by certain parties to the detriment of our youth is the £300 winter fuel allowance, which was essentially a bribe. And the vast majority of pensioners at the time didn't really need it. There used to be an education maintenance allowance of a similar amount each year for those aged 16-19 seeking to continue their studies and learn a skill. This enabled many teenagers from deprived areas to train in a trade. It was removed around the same time the winter fuel allowance was introduced. I wonder whether that would have happened had 16 year olds had the agency to vote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so the electorate will increase by 1.5 million I don't know what increase it would mean to the electorate, I've not looked it up. If that's in reference to the 1-5% of the impact on the vote in any election though, then that's not the measure being applied here. The 1-5% refers to the impact on the outcome of the vote of 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote. The actual impact varies depending on the election but is within 1-5% using all examples where 16 and 17 year olds have been given the agency to vote in an election. chill .... i wasn't referencing your posts at all, just putting the increase in the number of franchisement out there. doubtless not all will participate though. Given that the impact is so negliable, it sort of puts a mockery on those suggesting this policy is designed to swing the vote in favour of labour. All the evidence suggests it won't and so you could therefore argue that isn't their motive and that this is far more about unlocking democracy to a forgotten generation who are vastly outnumbered by those of a pensionable age. A great example of how those of a pensionable age are courted by certain parties to the detriment of our youth is the £300 winter fuel allowance, which was essentially a bribe. And the vast majority of pensioners at the time didn't really need it. There used to be an education maintenance allowance of a similar amount each year for those aged 16-19 seeking to continue their studies and learn a skill. This enabled many teenagers from deprived areas to train in a trade. It was removed around the same time the winter fuel allowance was introduced. I wonder whether that would have happened had 16 year olds had the agency to vote?" 18 months ago the last government changed the law to scrap the 15 year limit and allow all uk migrants living abroad to vote in uk elections. this meant an increase of the electorate by roughly 3 million people. ons estimate half this number have not set foot in the country for 40 years or more. nobody batted an eyelid | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. " A simple entry mechanism could be that a 16 year old needs to go to the polling station that they would vote in, and register themselves to vote. I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so the electorate will increase by 1.5 million I don't know what increase it would mean to the electorate, I've not looked it up. If that's in reference to the 1-5% of the impact on the vote in any election though, then that's not the measure being applied here. The 1-5% refers to the impact on the outcome of the vote of 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote. The actual impact varies depending on the election but is within 1-5% using all examples where 16 and 17 year olds have been given the agency to vote in an election. chill .... i wasn't referencing your posts at all, just putting the increase in the number of franchisement out there. doubtless not all will participate though. Given that the impact is so negliable, it sort of puts a mockery on those suggesting this policy is designed to swing the vote in favour of labour. All the evidence suggests it won't and so you could therefore argue that isn't their motive and that this is far more about unlocking democracy to a forgotten generation who are vastly outnumbered by those of a pensionable age. A great example of how those of a pensionable age are courted by certain parties to the detriment of our youth is the £300 winter fuel allowance, which was essentially a bribe. And the vast majority of pensioners at the time didn't really need it. There used to be an education maintenance allowance of a similar amount each year for those aged 16-19 seeking to continue their studies and learn a skill. This enabled many teenagers from deprived areas to train in a trade. It was removed around the same time the winter fuel allowance was introduced. I wonder whether that would have happened had 16 year olds had the agency to vote? 18 months ago the last government changed the law to scrap the 15 year limit and allow all uk migrants living abroad to vote in uk elections. this meant an increase of the electorate by roughly 3 million people. ons estimate half this number have not set foot in the country for 40 years or more. nobody batted an eyelid" Quite. Because the arguments against 16 year olds being given the vote are politically motivated rather than evidence based. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent." 16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. " Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 18 months ago the last government changed the law to scrap the 15 year limit and allow all uk migrants living abroad to vote in uk elections. this meant an increase of the electorate by roughly 3 million people. ons estimate half this number have not set foot in the country for 40 years or more. nobody batted an eyelid" If it was done the way I would design it, it would close that loop too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Quite. Because the arguments against 16 year olds being given the vote are politically motivated rather than evidence based." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. 16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18." oh dear! 🤦 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds." At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. 16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18." That's simply untrue. They can be on an apprenticeship scheme, or in the armed forces from 16 and be working and paying taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. 16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18. oh dear! 🤦" Oh dear oh dear 😎 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. " Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. 16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18. That's simply untrue. They can be on an apprenticeship scheme, or in the armed forces from 16 and be working and paying taxes." they can be in full time work end of. and if they are in full time work then they are being paid a minimum of 14,722.5 and therefore subject to the relevant taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. Yes, this. Absolutely. Now, perhaps voting for a government/MP requires an ability to answer a few questions, too. And also passing a small course - say a 5 hours presentation and a 20 question exam. Those who are mentally incapacitated should also be excluded. JTN, your idea is fabulous, but it could lead us down a dangerous path. Perhaps it is better to suffer a bunch of idiots voting target than exclude people, because once that door is opened, it lends itself to abuse. This is really a tough one." I'm not actually suggesting it. Just pointing out the age doesn't necessarily imply that people hav "insight and maturity to vote on complex issues". The real answer, and the thing that will never happen, is that the education system has some focus on how to analyse the information you receive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent." "16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18." "That's simply untrue. They can be on an apprenticeship scheme, or in the armed forces from 16 and be working and paying taxes." That's true, some of them do. But taxes are levied on everyone from the point of birth. There are plenty of child actors that pay taxes from very early ages. The only difference when you get to 16 is that you also have to pay National Insurance. I'm sure that no one is going to argue that all toddlers have to be given the vote because some of them are paying taxes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You could make that argument for giving 8-year olds the vote. The point is, where is the line that determines if the young have the necessary insight and maturity to vote on complex issues, often with deep roots and long term consequences. I'm doubtful 16 year olds possess that personally. What about if there was some way other than age to gage if the person has the insight and maturity to vote on complex issues? As an example imagine the Brexit referendum if your vote only counted if you could answer 3 very basic factual questions about the EU and how it works. A simple entry mechanism could be that a 16 year old needs to go to the polling station that they would vote in, and register themselves to vote. I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. " Seems sensible | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you should have a right to vote on how that money is spent. 16 year olds don't pay taxes. They are required to stay at school until they are 18. That's simply untrue. They can be on an apprenticeship scheme, or in the armed forces from 16 and be working and paying taxes. That's true, some of them do. But taxes are levied on everyone from the point of birth. There are plenty of child actors that pay taxes from very early ages. The only difference when you get to 16 is that you also have to pay National Insurance. I'm sure that no one is going to argue that all toddlers have to be given the vote because some of them are paying taxes." I was responding to two posts that suggested 16 and 17 year olds don't pay taxes. One even tried to ridicule me for saying they do. I take it were now all agreed that some 16 and17 year olds do pay tax? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? " Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it" I agree with you on this. But the problem doesn't seem to be limited to people 16/17. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it" So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it I agree with you on this. But the problem doesn't seem to be limited to people 16/17." I agree, it is across the board. We have a fire and forget view of politics in the UK and that works when there is a need to get a bill through parliament with little resistance. It rears its ugly head after the event and people then become upset. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence?" I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Seems sensible " Agreed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. " You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. " Then where would you draw the line, and why? 9? 12? 14? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? " You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. Then where would you draw the line, and why? 9? 12? 14?" The evidence suggests that a 16 year old is sufficiently qualified to make a judgement to vote. They can work and pay taxes, they can choose their lifetime partner, they can choose who they have sex with. Nobody is advocating below that age as the evidence all suggests that generally they are not capable of making informed decisions below the age of 16. Youre just throwing in a whataboutary argument to deflect from the actual discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get?" More whataboutary 🤦♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. " You states that 16 year old are too immature to vote. I'm simply asking you to validate that prejudicial statement with some evidence and facts as to why they are any less qualified than a 70 year old or a 90 year old. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️" Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why?" I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? " What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change?" If you want to have a debate about changing sentencing guidelines then that's a totally different debate. It has no bearing on this debate in question which is about 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote in democratic elections. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. You states that 16 year old are too immature to vote. I'm simply asking you to validate that prejudicial statement with some evidence and facts as to why they are any less qualified than a 70 year old or a 90 year old." We have gone around this circle more than once and we keep ending back at the same place. My final comment: The addition of 16 year old children is new and should be treated as a new change, with that should come scrutiny not a free for all. If you believe a 16 year old child is mature and has life experiences that qualify them to influence the direction of travel for the country, good on you. However, don't be surprised when China and Russia turn their attentions to this group in order to manipulate our voting even more than they do today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. You states that 16 year old are too immature to vote. I'm simply asking you to validate that prejudicial statement with some evidence and facts as to why they are any less qualified than a 70 year old or a 90 year old. We have gone around this circle more than once and we keep ending back at the same place. My final comment: The addition of 16 year old children is new and should be treated as a new change, with that should come scrutiny not a free for all. If you believe a 16 year old child is mature and has life experiences that qualify them to influence the direction of travel for the country, good on you. However, don't be surprised when China and Russia turn their attentions to this group in order to manipulate our voting even more than they do today." They actually teach in schools these days how to spot fake news on social media channels. Most kids are pretty savvy to it and don't get led up the garden path like most Brexiters did with the fake news generated by various dubious organisations at home and abroad. Check the average age of a Daily Mail reader for additional evidence. I think you've settled your own argument there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change? If you want to have a debate about changing sentencing guidelines then that's a totally different debate. It has no bearing on this debate in question which is about 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote in democratic elections." It is bearing on this debate. The justification for your argument is that they are mature enough to make these decisions. If your justification is true, we must apply the same principle everywhere. If you are not confident about applying the same principle everywhere, your justification is false. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change? If you want to have a debate about changing sentencing guidelines then that's a totally different debate. It has no bearing on this debate in question which is about 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote in democratic elections. It is bearing on this debate. The justification for your argument is that they are mature enough to make these decisions. If your justification is true, we must apply the same principle everywhere. If you are not confident about applying the same principle everywhere, your justification is false." Why must we? Like I said, separate debate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. You states that 16 year old are too immature to vote. I'm simply asking you to validate that prejudicial statement with some evidence and facts as to why they are any less qualified than a 70 year old or a 90 year old. We have gone around this circle more than once and we keep ending back at the same place. My final comment: The addition of 16 year old children is new and should be treated as a new change, with that should come scrutiny not a free for all. If you believe a 16 year old child is mature and has life experiences that qualify them to influence the direction of travel for the country, good on you. However, don't be surprised when China and Russia turn their attentions to this group in order to manipulate our voting even more than they do today. They actually teach in schools these days how to spot fake news on social media channels. Most kids are pretty savvy to it and don't get led up the garden path like most Brexiters did with the fake news generated by various dubious organisations at home and abroad. Check the average age of a Daily Mail reader for additional evidence. I think you've settled your own argument there." I said a nationwide syllabus to support the children, you have not touched on that? However you are happy to say that children are given social media awareness in schools, is it taught the same in all schools, exams etc? Those same children that get drawn into tiktok fads, influencers pushing Prime etc. Adults are no different and can be drawn in, but just as you have mentioned to other posters... If you want a debate about adults and their awareness or lack of to social media and fake news, it should be another thread. I will leave it here now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. You states that 16 year old are too immature to vote. I'm simply asking you to validate that prejudicial statement with some evidence and facts as to why they are any less qualified than a 70 year old or a 90 year old. We have gone around this circle more than once and we keep ending back at the same place. My final comment: The addition of 16 year old children is new and should be treated as a new change, with that should come scrutiny not a free for all. If you believe a 16 year old child is mature and has life experiences that qualify them to influence the direction of travel for the country, good on you. However, don't be surprised when China and Russia turn their attentions to this group in order to manipulate our voting even more than they do today. They actually teach in schools these days how to spot fake news on social media channels. Most kids are pretty savvy to it and don't get led up the garden path like most Brexiters did with the fake news generated by various dubious organisations at home and abroad. Check the average age of a Daily Mail reader for additional evidence. I think you've settled your own argument there. I said a nationwide syllabus to support the children, you have not touched on that? However you are happy to say that children are given social media awareness in schools, is it taught the same in all schools, exams etc? Those same children that get drawn into tiktok fads, influencers pushing Prime etc. Adults are no different and can be drawn in, but just as you have mentioned to other posters... If you want a debate about adults and their awareness or lack of to social media and fake news, it should be another thread. I will leave it here now. " Well it's relevant in countering your argument that 16 and17 years olds aren't equipped to make informed decision when it comes to voting. They are actually more equipped than most of the adult population of this country when it comes to dealing with fake news... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would still hold onto the idea that at 16 the vote is worth 0.25 and at 17 0.5 until 18. Why? Most 16 year olds will have had better academic and to a degree world education than many 80 year olds. At 16 immaturity is guaranteed, and sweeping statements of ability do not fit the group. Applying a 0.25 and 0.5 vote ratio allows the change to be understood before the gates are opened and there is no turning back. This country is excellent at introducing policy change without understanding the impacts, or setting out standards for the policies. I would also introduce a nationwide civic syllabus to give children a better toolset to support the responsibility they are being given. Why is immaturity a measure of why someone can or can't vote? Because immaturity is being added to the system and as such should be seen as risk. We should never introduce electoral change without understanding how it might impact the system. We have a habit of implementing policy through slogans, without setting standards, or thinking through the consequences. It seems a lot of people like the strapline but not the detail. If we are serious about giving younger people more responsibility, then we must also be serious about preparing them for it So you wish to discriminate based on age rather than look at facts and evidence? I do not understand how you are linking what I said to your answer. You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. How about you base it on some facts and evidence? Do you have any credible evidence that a 16 year old isn't sufficiently informed to vote over say a 70 year old? A 90 year old? You have not read my post correctly or you are singling out just one part. I will summarise again: At 16 they are children and immature, if we are serious about giving a new group voting rights they should be provided the tools to make more informed decisions, and not left to get on with it. We should also take time to look at the influence the new voter group has, by restricting the vote %, to allow a greater understanding. You states that 16 year old are too immature to vote. I'm simply asking you to validate that prejudicial statement with some evidence and facts as to why they are any less qualified than a 70 year old or a 90 year old. We have gone around this circle more than once and we keep ending back at the same place. My final comment: The addition of 16 year old children is new and should be treated as a new change, with that should come scrutiny not a free for all. If you believe a 16 year old child is mature and has life experiences that qualify them to influence the direction of travel for the country, good on you. However, don't be surprised when China and Russia turn their attentions to this group in order to manipulate our voting even more than they do today. They actually teach in schools these days how to spot fake news on social media channels. Most kids are pretty savvy to it and don't get led up the garden path like most Brexiters did with the fake news generated by various dubious organisations at home and abroad. Check the average age of a Daily Mail reader for additional evidence. I think you've settled your own argument there." The teach biology at school too, but when I'm being prepped for surgery I'd rather my surgeon was a Daily Mail reader than aged 16. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change? If you want to have a debate about changing sentencing guidelines then that's a totally different debate. It has no bearing on this debate in question which is about 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote in democratic elections. It is bearing on this debate. The justification for your argument is that they are mature enough to make these decisions. If your justification is true, we must apply the same principle everywhere. If you are not confident about applying the same principle everywhere, your justification is false. Why must we? Like I said, separate debate." Of course you must. The justification you are using has other implications. Are you ok with those implications? If not, your justification is false. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But why 16, specifically? And would you subject a 16yo to all rights and privileges of adulthood?" 16 is an arbitary age as is 18. I think the main argument being put forward by those wanting to limit the franchise is that people below the age of 18 aren't mentally competent to vote. But the problem is how do we define this? A test isn't a realistic solution. So we end up with an age set pretty much just by the consensus of those who already have the franchise. In the UK the consensus used to be that women were too irrational to have the vote. Eventually men and women were treated the same but you could only vote if your were 21 or over. It wasn't until 1969 that the age was lowered to 18 . You still had to be over 21 to stand for Parliament though. This didn't change until 2006. So what we see is a general trend to extend democratic rights to a wider and wider population. I see this as a good thing. Some other people (generally but not exclusively those on the right) see this as eroding their power. I think the arguments against universal sufferage have never stood up. The mental competency argument sounds good superficially but how do we define it? Any kind of scientific definition might result in some 10 year olds being able to vote but some adults never being able to vote. On rights and priviledges of adulthood this is a different subject that should also include concepts of the protection of minors. Something to discuss in another thread as this one looks set to be full soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change? If you want to have a debate about changing sentencing guidelines then that's a totally different debate. It has no bearing on this debate in question which is about 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote in democratic elections. It is bearing on this debate. The justification for your argument is that they are mature enough to make these decisions. If your justification is true, we must apply the same principle everywhere. If you are not confident about applying the same principle everywhere, your justification is false. Why must we? Like I said, separate debate. Of course you must. The justification you are using has other implications. Are you ok with those implications? If not, your justification is false." I'm asking you why we must. So do explain. What are these other implications? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. Then where would you draw the line, and why? 9? 12? 14? The evidence suggests that a 16 year old is sufficiently qualified to make a judgement to vote. They can work and pay taxes, they can choose their lifetime partner, they can choose who they have sex with. " What evidence? " Nobody is advocating below that age as the evidence all suggests that generally they are not capable of making informed decisions below the age of 16. " What evidence? " Youre just throwing in a whataboutary argument to deflect from the actual discussion." Where was the whataboutary? If you're looking to move a marker down a sliding scale, it is pertinent to look up and down that same scale when assessing whether it has been set to the correct point and understand: the underlying reasons for the status quo, the need for change and the factors against change, surely? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are basing your answer on immaturity, which is purely a measure of age. Age in itself is just a prejudice. Then where would you draw the line, and why? 9? 12? 14? The evidence suggests that a 16 year old is sufficiently qualified to make a judgement to vote. They can work and pay taxes, they can choose their lifetime partner, they can choose who they have sex with. What evidence? Nobody is advocating below that age as the evidence all suggests that generally they are not capable of making informed decisions below the age of 16. What evidence? Youre just throwing in a whataboutary argument to deflect from the actual discussion. Where was the whataboutary? If you're looking to move a marker down a sliding scale, it is pertinent to look up and down that same scale when assessing whether it has been set to the correct point and understand: the underlying reasons for the status quo, the need for change and the factors against change, surely?" Yes, and looking up the scale, we have had an increasingly aged population over the past 30 years to the point the younger generation are disproportionately under represented. There's plenty of evidence: Improved education Greater awareness More media Just to state a few. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There's plenty of evidence: Improved education Greater awareness More media Just to state a few." Oh. That evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if they do work 37.5 hours a week, they are under the personal tax allowance..... " you're wrong .... i've posted the figures for a 16-17 yr old's wages for a 37.5 hour week above. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have just listened to Starmer's reasoning for lowering the age of the vote to 16, which is 16 year olds pay tax and should have a say where that tax is spent. " Conversely, adults who do not pay tax should not have a vote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if they do work 37.5 hours a week, they are under the personal tax allowance..... you're wrong .... i've posted the figures for a 16-17 yr old's wages for a 37.5 hour week above." Your right I had the wrong figure and they will pay £430 in tax. However 1.7% are working and many are part time. So I still feel the rationale is wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have just listened to Starmer's reasoning for lowering the age of the vote to 16, which is 16 year olds pay tax and should have a say where that tax is spent. Great reason when only 1.7% of 16- 17 year olds are employed, with many working part time and if they do work 37.5 hours a week, they are under the personal tax allowance..... This is the level of reasoning the public have come to expect. " Currently, the minimum wage for under 18s is £7.55. So for a 42 hour week, that's around £16500. Personal tax allowance is around £12500. Therefore under 18s working a full week pay tax on around £4000. I therefore think you are incorrect but you can look the numbers up and do the sums yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have just listened to Starmer's reasoning for lowering the age of the vote to 16, which is 16 year olds pay tax and should have a say where that tax is spent. Conversely, adults who do not pay tax should not have a vote? "That would be moving the goalposts, when they are 18, 79.8% wont be working and will get their vote | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have just listened to Starmer's reasoning for lowering the age of the vote to 16, which is 16 year olds pay tax and should have a say where that tax is spent. Great reason when only 1.7% of 16- 17 year olds are employed, with many working part time and if they do work 37.5 hours a week, they are under the personal tax allowance..... This is the level of reasoning the public have come to expect. Currently, the minimum wage for under 18s is £7.55. So for a 42 hour week, that's around £16500. Personal tax allowance is around £12500. Therefore under 18s working a full week pay tax on around £4000. I therefore think you are incorrect but you can look the numbers up and do the sums yourself." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the arguments against extending the franchise are wrong then perhaps we should look at reversing things. Are 18 year olds really old enough to make considered politcal choices? Why should someone who was merely a child the day before polling day get to vote? Why don't we put it back up to 21? Wouldn't that result in better outcomes according to the argument some seem to be promoting here?" Are you suggesting there is a problem to be fixed? That the current electorate aren't capable of making good political decisions? The evidis there with the Brexit vote to support that argument. Therefore wouldn't it be better to lower the voting age rather than restrict it further? Afterall, it wasn't those under 21 who got us into the mess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Are you suggesting there is a problem to be fixed? That the current electorate aren't capable of making good political decisions? The evidis there with the Brexit vote to support that argument. Therefore wouldn't it be better to lower the voting age rather than restrict it further? Afterall, it wasn't those under 21 who got us into the mess." No, I'm for extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. I'm was just trying to use the objector's own argument to show how daft their position is. * I did make a typo and wrote wrong rather than correct accidentally though! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the arguments against extending the franchise are wrong then perhaps we should look at reversing things. Are 18 year olds really old enough to make considered politcal choices? Why should someone who was merely a child the day before polling day get to vote? Why don't we put it back up to 21? Wouldn't that result in better outcomes according to the argument some seem to be promoting here? Are you suggesting there is a problem to be fixed? That the current electorate aren't capable of making good political decisions? The evidis there with the Brexit vote to support that argument. Therefore wouldn't it be better to lower the voting age rather than restrict it further? Afterall, it wasn't those under 21 who got us into the mess." I'm pretty sure a lot 18-21 year olds didn't even bother voting in the referendum am sure there was stuff on the news after the vote about how many couldn't be botherd | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have just listened to Starmer's reasoning for lowering the age of the vote to 16, which is 16 year olds pay tax and should have a say where that tax is spent. Great reason when only 1.7% of 16- 17 year olds are employed, with many working part time and if they do work 37.5 hours a week, they are under the personal tax allowance..... This is the level of reasoning the public have come to expect. " I thought most 16 - 18 year olds stayed on at school these days unless they have a job to go to,my grandson has managed to get an apprenticeship as a carpenter but nearly all his mates have stayed on at school | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the arguments against extending the franchise are wrong then perhaps we should look at reversing things. Are 18 year olds really old enough to make considered politcal choices? Why should someone who was merely a child the day before polling day get to vote? Why don't we put it back up to 21? Wouldn't that result in better outcomes according to the argument some seem to be promoting here? Are you suggesting there is a problem to be fixed? That the current electorate aren't capable of making good political decisions? The evidis there with the Brexit vote to support that argument. Therefore wouldn't it be better to lower the voting age rather than restrict it further? Afterall, it wasn't those under 21 who got us into the mess.I'm pretty sure a lot 18-21 year olds didn't even bother voting in the referendum am sure there was stuff on the news after the vote about how many couldn't be botherd " 18-24 (the only stats I could find), turn out was about 64%. Over 70% of them voted remain. Likely because they decided to learn what the EU is and how it works. Which is evidence to suggest young people do vote responsibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pretty sure a lot 18-21 year olds didn't even bother voting in the referendum am sure there was stuff on the news after the vote about how many couldn't be botherd" The idea that the general population is in any way well-informed about politics is a joke. You only need to chat with a random person to realise that politics is very low on the list of things they are interested in or motivated by. I've met loads of people who have no idea what left-wing and right-wing mean for instance. I'd say well over 95% of people have no idea who their MP is. Some people don't even know who the Prime Minister is. Most people are focused on their personal relationships with family and friends then it tends to be things like sport, food, clothes, holidays, music, films etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the arguments against extending the franchise are wrong then perhaps we should look at reversing things. Are 18 year olds really old enough to make considered politcal choices? Why should someone who was merely a child the day before polling day get to vote? Why don't we put it back up to 21? Wouldn't that result in better outcomes according to the argument some seem to be promoting here? Are you suggesting there is a problem to be fixed? That the current electorate aren't capable of making good political decisions? The evidis there with the Brexit vote to support that argument. Therefore wouldn't it be better to lower the voting age rather than restrict it further? Afterall, it wasn't those under 21 who got us into the mess.I'm pretty sure a lot 18-21 year olds didn't even bother voting in the referendum am sure there was stuff on the news after the vote about how many couldn't be botherd " There are no figures available for the 18-21 age range, but 64% of registered voters aged 18-24 went to the polls. This compares to 65.5% for the 25-44 age range. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the arguments against extending the franchise are wrong then perhaps we should look at reversing things. Are 18 year olds really old enough to make considered politcal choices? Why should someone who was merely a child the day before polling day get to vote? Why don't we put it back up to 21? Wouldn't that result in better outcomes according to the argument some seem to be promoting here? Are you suggesting there is a problem to be fixed? That the current electorate aren't capable of making good political decisions? The evidis there with the Brexit vote to support that argument. Therefore wouldn't it be better to lower the voting age rather than restrict it further? Afterall, it wasn't those under 21 who got us into the mess.I'm pretty sure a lot 18-21 year olds didn't even bother voting in the referendum am sure there was stuff on the news after the vote about how many couldn't be botherd 18-24 (the only stats I could find), turn out was about 64%. Over 70% of them voted remain. Likely because they decided to learn what the EU is and how it works. Which is evidence to suggest young people do vote responsibility. " Absolutely. Many did do there research. This compares to the vast majority of those over the age of 55 voting for Brexit without any real understanding of what they were voting for. More evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are sufficiently equipped to have the vote. In some cases more so than the majority of the existing electorate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just curious. How many of you who support this change also support changing our sentencing guidelines to treat 16-18 years old as adults and give the same sentence an adult would get? More whataboutary 🤦♂️ Asking for ideological consistency isn't whataboutery. You are arguing that 16-18 year olds are mature enough to make decisions around the political future of the country. In that case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for the crime they commit, right? If that's not the case, why? I haven't argued differently. But that's not the debate here. Show me some evidence that a 16 year old is less qualified to vote than any other person? What does "I haven't argued differently?" mean? If the conservatives propose a legislation to change the sentencing policies to treat them as adults, will you be supportive of it as you are supportive of the voting law change? If you want to have a debate about changing sentencing guidelines then that's a totally different debate. It has no bearing on this debate in question which is about 16 and 17 year olds having the right to vote in democratic elections. It is bearing on this debate. The justification for your argument is that they are mature enough to make these decisions. If your justification is true, we must apply the same principle everywhere. If you are not confident about applying the same principle everywhere, your justification is false. Why must we? Like I said, separate debate. Of course you must. The justification you are using has other implications. Are you ok with those implications? If not, your justification is false. I'm asking you why we must. So do explain. What are these other implications? " Your justification is that 16-18 age group is mature enough to vote and make important decisions about the government. If that's the case, they are definitely mature enough to take responsibility for crimes too. This is the extension of "If 16-18 year olds pay tax, why can't they vote?" Well if they can vote, why can't they take responsibility for their crime? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A couple of points. Criminal age of responsibility is 10 years old - the law states that children of this age know right from wrong. And.... The brain doesn't fully mature until at least the mid-20s, with some research suggesting continued development into the late 20s or even early 30s. While the brain reaches approximately 90-95% of its adult size by age 5, the intricate connections and functional maturation continue throughout childhood and adolescence. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for higher-level cognitive functions like planning and decision-making, is one of the last areas to fully develop. Maybe the voting age should be raised?! 😁" This goes a long way to evidence we got it wrong once so don't do it again... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The idea that people believe that 16 year old children should be given the vote because young people voted the way they voted or would approve of, is a really good reason to slow this down. " This is a weird post, Who has said that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A couple of points. Criminal age of responsibility is 10 years old - the law states that children of this age know right from wrong. And.... The brain doesn't fully mature until at least the mid-20s, with some research suggesting continued development into the late 20s or even early 30s. While the brain reaches approximately 90-95% of its adult size by age 5, the intricate connections and functional maturation continue throughout childhood and adolescence. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for higher-level cognitive functions like planning and decision-making, is one of the last areas to fully develop. Maybe the voting age should be raised?! 😁" You probably need to balance that with the degeneration of the brain in old age; particularly given dementia cases are so prevalent and on the rise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
